Joe Nunweek has blogged what is probably the most detailed critique of Seven Sharp. It’s a good read.
As I have blogged previously I have generally enjoyed the show. But there was one part this week that really made me groan. They had someone on for 5 to 10 minutes to give his view of how the entire banking system was a Ponzi scheme and that the Reserve Bank should just print more money or something (no it wasn’t Russel Norman – this guy made even Russel seem rational). Then at the end of the entirely unchallenged viewpoint:
“Now, we could have had any number of economists in to discuss the yin and the yang of what we’ve just seen, but we’d rather know what you think!”
I’m all for viewer input and feedback but they are complementary for expert opinion – not a substitute for it. Especially in an area such as the financial and banking system. It was an appalling decision to not only refuse to have anyone to to put the other side of what the Social Credit type activist was claiming – but to actually boast of how they were not interested in having a well-informed discussion. If they had put on an economist on, then the viewer would have been in a better position to give feedback. Feedback is not a substitute for analysis.
To give credit to Greg Boyed, he did at least attempt to point out why the banking system is not a ponzi scheme.